HI&RH Archduke Imre of Austria & Miss Kathleen Walker: 8 September 2012

[King Edward]

Why the unclassy criticism of Katie Walker?

I read some of the posts concerning Imre and Katie's wedding and I had to scratch my head.--They had a Mass in Latin after they exchanged vows (you can't get much classier or more traditional than that) and their service had music from great legendary composers! Furthermore, everyone looked great!

Now, when you have everything as traditional as they did, you can afford to be practical (or even a bit quirky) with a conveniently sized hummer which was BETTER than that STAGED made-for-TV goofiness that had William driving away with Kate after their wedding. Folks, let's not Major in the Minors. Some here are coming across like that lady from Keeping Up Appearances.

It is better to be quirky with the non-essentials than with the religious service. Imre and Katie believe in their faith. Many other royals use churches as a backdrop, which apparently is what some of the posters here are more comfortable with. (as if they were watching a soap opera)

Classy people wait on and serve each other. That Imre's mom held a microphone for her husband is sweet. They are probably always helping each other out like that.--Oh horror of horrors! Besides, his speech is for an intimate gathering, not for the voting public or the superficial crowds.

In regards to Katie's views, see post #85 with the imbedded YouTube video. --The groom's father respects her activity in the defense of life. In fact, her viewpoint has been the traditional viewpoint of royals throughout time. But for those who prefer pretty faces and clothes to substance, I don't know what to tell you.

Noble people do noble deeds. She believes that life begins at conception and that she is helping to save lives. To her pro-life IS pro-women. At least she has the courage to stand for something. Can't we respect that? Or do we all want people who are as superficial as we can be sometimes.

If someone genuinely believes what they are doing, I might disagree with them, but I respect that they have some conviction. In the public square we all have a right to be advocates and activists. I doubt she would corner anyone in an intimate setting or social function.

There is a time and place for everything. I think she knows that. If not, she will learn to be more discreet. Unfortunately, many posters think there is never a time for her viewpoints, but always time for the vapid and superficial.

Western Civilization wasn't built because people didn't take a stand on controversial issues.--Like or not, she is in the tradition of the West and the family she married into.----King Edward

 

[carlota]

Since Austria abolished all titles with the end of the monarchy the bride is NOT an Archduchess what's more she has not even the right to call herself an Archduchess while being in Austria. She is just Kathleen Habsburg-Lothringen and the same applies for all family members! Even the late Otto didn't have this right he was just Dr. Otto Habsburg-Lothringen in Austria. Only IF the monarchy still existed the title Archduke and Duchess would be correct.

i didn't know this. so why are carl christian and astrid referred to as archduke and archduchess then? (confused)

 

[Grandma828]

The wedding gives me the feel of a traditional Catholic wedding. The Latin Mass is what I grew up with. Beautiful and reverent. It was also a family affair. No cameras in church or at the reception. Church rules would be no flash bulbs etc in church. Just family celebrating the beginning of a new couple. It was not a public royal wedding. Their lives are as private people and not in the public. As Catholics they would have premartial counseling with the pastor, to make sure they knew what was required of them by the Church and that they were getting married for the right reasons.

 

[King Edward]

Carl-Christian an Archduke?-- Why Not ?!

If the monarchy were abolished tomorrow in Britain would you still call William and Harry --Prince William and Prince Harry? I think many would. I don't have a problem with that, do you?

So, if someone would have inherited a title, but political conditions have changed where their family now no longer reigns, is it wrong for them to use that title? --Personally, I don't care what anyone calls themself. --I can understand why some would be proud of their lineage and use a title that they would normally be entitled to use.

Presently, I myself am a Prince of my own House, a non-reigning house. Who is going to argue with me? But seriously, prudence (common sense) would dictate that you don't use your title in a country that kicked your ancestors out, lest you get arrested or worse. Furthermore, you can't deceive or defraud anyone by making them believe you have authority you don't have.

Archduke Carl-Christian comes from a very, very distinguished family. By all accounts he is a good and honorable man. I have no problem with someone like him using a title. He comes from nobility and carries himself in a dignified manner.--Besides, currently reigning houses accord him much respect. So why can't others?

Remember, reigning houses got their blood from houses that may or may not be currently reigning. For the nobility it is often about where your blood is from, not whether the house you're from is still ruling some place.-- King Edward

 

[Kataryn]

i didn't know this. so why are carl christian and astrid referred to as archduke and archduchess then? (confused)

Only because Austria does not recognize these titles anymore they don't cease to exist, because the laws that once ruled legitimately who is or is not an Archduke and an Archduchess of Austria are still working today. It never was a territorial title except for the Head of the House who in fact was "The Archduke" of Austria till 1918. But since 1803 the law said that the Head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine has a right to the title of "Emperor of Austria" and his family, if they were born of a recognized marriage, were Archdukes and Archduchesses of Austria. So these titles were based on a territory once, but from 1803 became the titles of the family, ruling or not ruling. Thus, for the States who had recognized the 1803 change of laws (all those who accepted the peace treaty of Vienna in 1815 eg) the Habsburgs still legitimately are known as "Archduke" and "Archduchess", no matter what the State of Austria says today.

I only wonder if Archduke Karl (who, as Head of the family, could call himself Emperor Karl BTW, but doesn't, though he is "The Archduke" nowadays) agreed to the marriage, so that it's recognized by the family?

 

[COUNTESS]

Actually, it is all theatre. There is no monarchy in Austria and it has been that way for 94 years. So, all these titles have no particular value, but if they think it gives them a better life, who cares. Many people call Harry and William just that. I think they like it. So, if the British Monarchy failed, tomorrow, that is who they would be. If it makes them happy I don't think anyone cares. They can call themselves whatever they'd like.

 

[Kit]

They can call themselves AD except in Austria where all nobility titles were abolished and where it is against the constitution and therefore against the law to use this titles. !!! As far as Karl's agreement to this marriage is concerned I am pretty sure he gave it. He had stated in an interview that he can not imagine a single reason why he should refuse to give his consent to marriages of family members - equal or non equal doesn't matter as long as it is a love match. His own marriage to Francesca was quite heavily criticized by his uncles at the time.

 

[marlene]

I think there is something odd about Kathleen's dress and tell me if you agree.I think the original dress was a the strapless satin part of the dress and that the lace sleeves and neckline were added afterwards to make the dress more modest.

 

[Pranter]

Marlene I think that is possible...it's not uncommon to have that sort of thing done among more conservative Christians. If only some of the guests at the wedding had thought of this....perhaps they didn't realize there is a dress code.

LaRae

 

[Shikha Pal]

nice pictures on revue!!!!!

 

[4Pam]

Too bad I can't see the video (it keeps telling me it's private). The wedding looks very nice. I hope that Imre and Katie have a great life together.

 

[royalcello]

Since Austria abolished all titles with the end of the monarchy the bride is NOT an Archduchess what's more she has not even the right to call herself an Archduchess while being in Austria. She is just Kathleen Habsburg-Lothringen and the same applies for all family members! Even the late Otto didn't have this right he was just Dr. Otto Habsburg-Lothringen in Austria. Only IF the monarchy still existed the title Archduke and Duchess would be correct.

Wrong! Royal titles are hereditary and cannot be taken away by any republic on earth. It is true that the Austrian Republic does not recognize titles, but I do not recognize the Austrian Republic which is an illegitimate and illegal abomination that has no right to exist whatsoever. There has not been a proper government in Austria since 1918 and all alleged "laws" passed since then pertaining to royalty and nobility are utterly null and void. As a passionate monarchist, no matter how "unrealistic" this seems, I am committed in principle to the restoration of every single monarchy that was stupidly and tragically "abolished" during the never-sufficiently-to-be-cursed 20th century (as well as France, Brazil, and Nepal) and condemn every republican regime that arrogantly dares to occupy once-monarchical lands. But even if we monarchists are not successful in this noble goal, I will still insist on the use of royal titles for all members of non-reigning royal families. Hopefully one day they will reign once more!

I am also appalled by the negative comments about Archduke Imre's new wife. How could anyone be surprised that a scion of Europe's greatest Catholic dynasty, whose great-grandfather was beatified by the staunchly pro-life Pope John Paul II, would marry a devout and vocally pro-life Catholic? While I have some sympathy for the traditional view that royalty should marry royalty, I understand that the type of European society that facilitated traditional royal matches unfortunately no longer exists. After 93 years of being cruelly denied the rights and privileges to which they are entitled, it would not be reasonable to expect present-day Habsburgs to be quite as restrictive in their marital choices as their ancestors would have expected. If AD Imre was to marry an American, he could hardly have done better. Since American monarchists are inevitably asked who we would propose as our monarch, I think Imre & Kathleen would be an excellent choice, though I'm not sure what they would think of this "nomination." While I personally am an Anglican (Episcopalian) and try to avoid divisive issues such as abortion, preferring to concentrate on monarchism, I fully respect AD Imre and ADss Kathleen's deeply held beliefs which are no more than would once have been expected of any Catholic.

Long live the Imperial House of Habsburg! Down with the Austrian and Hungarian republics! And I for one wish AD Imre and ADss Kathleen all the best and many happy years together.

 

[jonc93]

Royal titles are hereditary if the Monarchy exists, if the Monarchy doesn't exist they are courtesy titles. That's why we see King Constantine of Greece (and others) being called former King of Greece. The titles of the Habsburgs are just Courtesy titles, even they recognize that because in his wedding vows the groom was just called Irme of Austria, if he was really an Archduke of Austria, and possessed that legal title would they not use it in the marriage vows as other royals do?


And it's obvious these people with one or two posts are friends of Ms. Walker, her kind don't seem to bite their tongues especially on open internet forums.

 

[royalcello]

Yes, absolutely serious and "for real." What is so shocking about a royalist who actually believes in monarchy? And I don't drink wine.

 

[royalcello]

I grudgingly accept that the U.S. was founded as a republic and is likely to remain one, despite my tongue-in-cheek "nomination" of Imre & Kathleen (the only part of my original post that was not totally serious). What I do not accept is countries that were under monarchical rule for hundreds of years and whose authentic traditions & culture are inseparable from Monarchy, like Austria, becoming republics.

Interesting about your family. My parish in Dallas remains part of The Episcopal Church but is somewhat more conservative than most Episcopal parishes these days. I have monarchist friends on both sides of unrelated divisive contemporary issues such as abortion and homosexuality and try to remain as fair-minded as possible. Despite the impression my first post may have created, I'm actually relatively tolerant with the main exception of Monarchy vs Republic issues. I do respect AD Imre's and ADss Kathleen's deeply held convictions however.

 

[Benjamin]

Too bad I can't see the video (it keeps telling me it's private). The wedding looks very nice. I hope that Imre and Katie have a great life together.

What a shame.
It was still visible to the public when I posted it!

 

[royalcello]

And it's obvious these people with one or two posts are friends of Ms. Walker, her kind don't seem to bite their tongues especially on open internet forums.

For the record I have never met the former Miss Walker. I am simply a Christian Monarchist who is dismayed by the disrespectful and intolerant reaction to this marriage.

 

[Al_bina]

It is quite unfortunate that the "scion of Europe's greatest Catholic dynasty" has marred his bloodline. However, it is not surprising.

 

[Pranter]

The longer Austria goes remains without a monarchy the less likely (short of some earth shattering event) it will return. The Catholic monarchies are much more interesting to me as a whole for various reasons. Historical being one of them, legitimacy being another.

 

[royalcello]

Royal titles are hereditary if the Monarchy exists, if the Monarchy doesn't exist they are courtesy titles. That's why we see King Constantine of Greece (and others) being called former King of Greece. The titles of the Habsburgs are just Courtesy titles, even they recognize that because in his wedding vows the groom was just called Irme of Austria, if he was really an Archduke of Austria, and possessed that legal title would they not use it in the marriage vows as other royals do?

Actually at the British royal wedding in April 2011 the groom was addressed simply as "William Arthur Philip Louis" so I'm not sure what your point is. The use of "of Austria" constitutes a recognition of AD Imre's royal status, since the Austrian Republic would insist (wrongly) that his name is simply "Imre Habsburg."

 

[Pranter]

It is quite unfortunate that the scion of Europe's greatest Catholic dynasty has marred his bloodline. However, it is not surprising.

God is no respecter of persons. Imre's bloodline is as pure as it ever was. Royalty is not a genetic condition.


LaRae

 

[Mariel]

My weird position, which I suspect is probably the secret position of many royals, is that even if royalty and nobility continue, it is best to introduce new blood into it, which is what is going on in many European and UK houses right now. Only a few of them still marry nobility, and this may be because they know they are too closely related to marry, for ideal health. Speaking of Anglicanism, I have a Book of Common Prayer from 19th century England, which forbids marriage in degrees closer than the "fourth", and then spends pages describing what is meant by "fourth". We are all aware that this decree of the Church of England was broken by every royal person who married a close cousin in earlier days. You, as members of this forum, are aware of who these close cousins were, and how many there were. Victoria and Albert might be considered the epitome of this practice, which was actually against the statutes of the Church of England, as published in the Book of Common Prayer, in the 19th century when Victoria and Albert married.

In the U.S., there is no law against cousin marriages (at least not in most states that I know of) but it is nevertheless frowned on. Some diseases are passed on more readily when near relatives marry, and some weaknesses are likewise passed on more readily.
I have discussed on other threads the passing on of the genetic disease Porphyria, which was already in Queen Victoria's family when she married, and goes way back to the Tudors such as Margaret and the Stuarts such as Mary and James, and even further back to Katherine of Valois who married Henry V. when I posted this before, people seemed miffed. Well, I suspect the royals themselves know they are doing their lines a big favor by marrying good looking intelligent healthy people from outside the clan.

If a royal person has porphyria (or if anyone else does) it is paramount in controlling the symptoms to know HOW to do this, including what not to eat, what drugs not to take, to never ever drink alcohol, to avoid chemically toxic environments, and so forth.
Probably some present royals have porphyria and know how to avoid the symptoms very well; so well, that one could only guess which ones have it. they should share both their knowledge of how to handle this problem and how to diagnose it. They could benefit many many people by doing this, those who are not within the circle of knowledge.
But I suspect they are mostly taking the other sane course, breeding it OUT of the family. they don't actually seem to care about their noblesse oblige to others outside their circle who could benefit from what they know.

Anticipating comments, of course there are other defects which can and should be avoided by eschewing cousin marriage to a reasonable degree--the 19th century Book of Common Prayer says to the fourth degree.

 

[jonc93]

Actually at the British royal wedding in April 2011 the groom was addressed simply as "William Arthur Philip Louis" so I'm not sure what your point is. The use of "of Austria" constitutes a recognition of AD Imre's royal status, since the Austrian Republic would insist (wrongly) that his name is simply "Imre Habsburg."

But William has a real title, that was on the wedding programs and on his official documentation he may have used his regular name in vows but was referred to as a Prince in the wedding Ceremony. Anyway comparing the titles & weddings of Imre and William is comparing apples and goats, they are non comparable. William was born in a monarchy with a title recognized by the government of the country he was born in and recognized by every other country in the world Imre was not born into a ruling family or into a real title, his title is only recognized by family, friends and royalists.

 

[royalcello]

William was born in a monarchy with a title recognized by the government of the country he was born in and recognized by every other country in the world Imre was not born into a ruling family or into a real title, his title is only recognized by family, friends and royalists.

Well, I'm a royalist. So I recognize it. And the Austrian Republic (which I do not recognize) has no authority or ability to prevent me or anyone else from doing so. (In 2001 a prominent conservative Austrian politician addressed AD Otto and ADss Regina as "Your Imperial Highnesses" at their Golden Wedding celebration, so it is not just me. The leftists in Parliament were furious and I think even called for her to be prosecuted but nothing came of it.)

 

[MarleneKoenig]

There were two photographers in the church and at the reception - the official photographer and the photographer from Luxnews.

The wedding gives me the feel of a traditional Catholic wedding. The Latin Mass is what I grew up with. Beautiful and reverent. It was also a family affair. No cameras in church or at the reception. Church rules would be no flash bulbs etc in church. Just family celebrating the beginning of a new couple. It was not a public royal wedding. Their lives are as private people and not in the public. As Catholics they would have premartial counseling with the pastor, to make sure they knew what was required of them by the Church and that they were getting married for the right reasons.

 

[Kit]

@ royalcello it doesn't matter that you recognize their titles since YOU are not an Austrian citizen as so I won't even bother to comment upon this nonsense regarding Austrian governments. Suffice it to say it is certainly better than some US governments. The main branch of the Habsburgs respects the Austrian constitution and does NOT use the title OTTO gave up his title and his claim to the throne in 1961 as did all the family members living in Austria at the time. Karl as head of the family just uses the name Karl Habsburg-Lothringen so if he accepts the Austrian Republic who are YOU to disagree with him ???

 

[Benjamin]

Just because you do not agree with someone's opinion does not mean that you have the right to dismiss it as if it does not matter. Karl may have the legal surname "Habsburg-Lothringen" but he has used/been accorded the title "Archduke of Austria" socially. So there is no disagreement.

 

[MarleneKoenig]

This is most certainly true in terms of the constitutional issue. This however does not change the fact that Karl and all of the Habsburgs do use their titles socially, and their titles are recognized by other courts. They also use the titles on invitations, etc. The Belgian court certainly recognizes the titles, as Princess Astrid married Archduke Lorenz. The titles are also certainly recognized the Habsburg titles because it was on all of the official documents regarding Marie Astrid's wedding ... and the title was used by the Pope on the blessing or whatever Imre and Katie received ...

@ royalcello it doesn't matter that you recognize their titles since YOU are not an Austrian citizen as so I won't even bother to comment upon this nonsense regarding Austrian governments. Suffice it to say it is certainly better than some US governments. The main branch of the Habsburgs respects the Austrian constitution and does NOT use the title OTTO gave up his title and his claim to the throne in 1961 as did all the family members living in Austria at the time. Karl as head of the family just uses the name Karl Habsburg-Lothringen so if he accepts the Austrian Republic who are YOU to disagree with him ???

 

[Kit]

karl does not use the title but he accepts if he is adressed as AD in private circles. That is the difference between the main branch of the Habsburgs and the minor branches such as the Belgian one or Imre's family who DONT actually live in Austria.

 

[royalcello]

Thanks to Benjamin and MarleneKoenig for pointing out that the titles are still in use socially by the royals themselves and not only by eccentric monarchists like me. It is indeed uncomfortable for me that Europe's non-reigning royalty have been as accepting of their countries' republican constitutions as they have; I respectfully disagree--that's all I'll say about that. But it is often the lot of monarchists to be "plus royaliste que le roi." After all, if the royalty themselves were actively promoting the restoration of monarchies it would be seen as selfish. An important part of the value of hereditary monarchy is the advantages of a head of state who did not personally seek power or position. It is up to royalist commoners to work to restore monarchies. I doubt that in the end most of the heads of the royal houses would actually decline their respective thrones if feasibly offered; however, alas we are not at the point where it is possible to do so.